6 Comments
User's avatar
Adri's avatar

Nothing says “sound financial system” quite like having your actuarial model depend on everyone politely dying on time.

Julián's avatar

As so many things in life, timing is everything.

storiestellr's avatar

like a drug: “Today’s payers complain about the arrangement right up until the morning they qualify for it, and then they reach for the same shield the last lot was holding.” and it’s a ticking time bomb because the numbers are so out of whack

Julián's avatar

I discussed this with friends, and we agreed that a weighted vote factor depending on life expectancy would be a good idea. I.e. example, the more years you have left to live, the more your vote would count or be multiplied by a factor based on your age. On the other hand, you wouldn't want easily impressionable/manipulable young people to have too much influence. But it’s an interesting way to shift the balance of power to those that have to live with the consequences of short term thinking!

Julián's avatar

Pensioners want three things:

1. Pension payments to go up

2. Healthcare availability to go up

3. House prices to go up

None of these three benefit young people (except perhaps healthcare – but then again, expensive healthcare transfers are not a concern for healthy young people.)

storiestellr's avatar

maybe >65 should renounce their ability to vote if they collect a pension. that might fix a few things.